“Truly free consent”? Clarifying the nature of police legitimacy using causal mediation analysis

Pósch, Krisztián; Jackson, Jonathan; Bradford, Ben; MacQueen, Sarah

doi:10.1007/s11292-020-09426-x

Cited by 68 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In experimental work, it is important to measure the mediator before the dependent variable (because the design permits causal claims), but in cross-sectional survey work when no such causal claims are made, it is only important if one thinks there are question order effects. Future research should replicate our findings using experimental design and causal mediation analysis methods that are beyond the scope of this paper (e.g., Pósch et al, 2020) and build on our findings by manipulating similar predictor variables to measure their effect on similar mediators and outcomes.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 72%

On the importance of a procedurally fair organizational climate for openness to change in law enforcement.

Brimbal¹,

Bradford²,

Jackson³

et al. 2020

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on recent work in policing and organizational psychology, we examined factors related to openness to organizational change and to adopting evidence-based interview techniques among law enforcement investigators. Hypotheses We hypothesized that a procedurally fair organizational climate would predict outcomes tied to organizational change, mediated by organizational identification and perceived legitimacy. We also predicted that procedural justice factors would be stronger predictors than outcome-oriented factors (i.e., rewards and sanctions). Methods Study 1 surveyed law enforcement investigators (N = 711) about their attitudes towards and behaviors within their organization (i.e., perceived procedural fairness of one's organization, identification, legitimacy, compliance, empowerment, and extra-role behavior). Study 2 conceptually extended this survey to interviewers (N = 71) trained in a new, evidence-based interviewing approach adding likelihood of future use of the novel interviewing approach as an outcome. Results In Study 1, the more investigators thought their organization had a procedurally fair climate, the more they identified with the organization and perceived it as legitimate. Framing compliance, empowerment and extra-role behavior as associated with openness to change, we found that legitimacy predicted compliance and tendency toward extra-role behavior (i.e., going "above and beyond"), while level of identification predicted feelings of empowerment and extra-role behavior. Study 2, partially replicated findings from Study 1, and found that motivation to attend the training also predicted likelihood of future use. Conclusions These studies highlight the value of a procedurally just organizational climate framework in understanding law enforcement interrogators' propensity towards implementing new evidence-based interrogation techniques.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 72%

On the importance of a procedurally fair organizational climate for openness to change in law enforcement.

Brimbal¹,

Bradford²,

Jackson³

et al. 2020

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When people think that the rules are created and enforced by authorities in a procedurally fair and just manner, there is a greater OOL (Nagin and Telep 2017, Tyler 1997, 2006, Walters and Bolger 2019. Second, OOL has a non-normative dimension; when people feel that they have no other choice but to obey, they rather obey out of coercion and fear of authorities (Posch et al 2020). We expected that normative OOL ("N-OOL"), non-normative OOL ("NN-OOL"), and PJ would be associated with greater compliance.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intelligent Lockdown: Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the Netherlands

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government has introduced an "intelligent lockdown" with stay at home and social distancing measures. The Dutch approach to mitigate the virus focuses less on repression and more on moral appeals and self-discipline. This study assessed what factors influence whether Dutch people comply with the measures. We analyzed data from an online survey (N = 568) conducted between April 7-14. The overall results showed that reported compliance was high. Analyzing what shaped such compliance, shows that the the Dutch approach has to some extent worked as hoped in practice. Repression did not play a significant role in compliance, while intrinsic (moral and social) motivations promoted compliance. Yet appeals on self-discipline did not work for everyone, and people who reported more impulsivity were more likely to violate the rules. In addition, compliance was lower for people who lacked the practical capacity to follow the measures and for those who have the opportunity to break the measures. Sustained compliance, therefore, relies on support to aid people to maintain social distancing and restrictions to reduce opportunities for unsafe gatherings. These findings suggest several important practical recommendations for combating the COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

“…Non-normative obligation was measured using a single item "I only obey the authorities handling the Coronavirus because I am afraid of them." (adapted from Posch et al (2020), Tankebe, Reisig, and Wang (2016)). Answers were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) "very strongly disagree" to (7) "very strongly agree."…”

Section: Descriptive Social Norms Participants Rated To What Extent mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Did Israelis Comply with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures During the Initial First Wave Lockdown?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates why Israeli citizens complied with measures taken to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 virus in early April. At the time, Israel had relatively stringent mitigation measures that encouraged people to stay at home and keep a safe social distance. The data of 411 adult participants, gathered using survey research, showed that overall, compliance levels at that time were high. It finds that compliance depended on a combination of moral factors, such as people's moral duty to obey the law and people's tendency to obey the law generally. In addition, people who had friends over 75 years old were more likely to comply. Furthermore, people were more likely to comply if they were able to do so, and less likely to violate if they did not have the opportunity to do so. The study did not find that fear of punishment (deterrence) was significantly associated with compliance. Overall, these findings are in line with studies conducted the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Notes: This working paper offers a first look at the data collected before developing it into a fully theorized publication. It has not yet been peer reviewed. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. published studies have analysed compliance with COVID-19 measures in early April, focusing on the United States ("US"), The United Kingdom ("UK"), and the Netherlands. Their findings showed that compliance levels were generally high in early April. They further showed that compliance did not rely on deterrence or threat of enforcement. Rather, compliance depended on people's individual characteristics and the situation they were in. In particular, people showed greater compliance when they had better impulse control (Netherlands and US), when they were better able to stay at home or keep a social distance, and when they lacked of opportunity to break the rules (most clearly in the US and Netherlands). On the other hand, intrinsic motivation also influenced compliance in these three countries. People were more likely to comply when they perceived greater obligation to obey the law (UK and Netherlands), when they saw many others complying (US and Netherlands), when they morally thought people should obey the measures (US and Netherlands), or were more afraid of the disease (Netherlands only). The present study analyses what shaped compliance in Israel. It offers data that helps understand compliance with the COVID-19 measures in Israel. The study answers two crucial questions in relation to these mitigation measures. First, it studies to what extent people have complied with the measures taken. Second, it analyses which factors have played a role in shaping people's compliance. The study thus adds a fourth country to our series of studies and further expands our understanding of compliance with mitigation measures during the first wave of the virus. Israel presents an interesting case to study compliance for several reasons. First, it has a longer history of dealing with national safety threats, and...

show abstract

“Truly free consent”? Clarifying the nature of police legitimacy using causal mediation analysis

Cited by 68 publications

References 94 publications

On the importance of a procedurally fair organizational climate for openness to change in law enforcement.

On the importance of a procedurally fair organizational climate for openness to change in law enforcement.

The Intelligent Lockdown: Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the Netherlands

Why Did Israelis Comply with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures During the Initial First Wave Lockdown?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About